Toward the end of his life, the Chevalier de Seingalt (1725−1798) wrote a long memoir recounting his
life and adventures. The Chevalier was a somewhat controversial figure, but since he met many famous
people, including kings and writers, his memoir has become a valuable historical source about European
society in the eighteenth century. However, some critics have raised doubts about the accuracy of the
memoir. They claim that the Chevalier distorted or invented many events in the memoir to make his life
seem more exciting and glamorous than it really was.
For example, in his memoir the Chevalier claims that while living in Switzerland, he was very wealthy, and
it is known that he spent a great deal of money there on parties and gambling. However, evidence has
recently surfaced that the Chevalier borrowed considerable sums of money from a Swiss merchant. Critics
thus argue that if the Chevalier had really been very rich, he would not have needed to borrow money.
Critics are also skeptical about the accuracy of the conversations that the Chevalier records in the memoir
between himself and the famous writer Voltaire. No one doubts that the Chevalier and Voltaire met and
conversed. However, critics complain that the memoir cannot possibly capture these conversations
accurately, because it was written many years after the conversations occurred. Critics point out that it is
impossible to remember exact phrases from extended conversations held many years earlier.
Critics have also questioned the memoir’s account of the Chevalier’s escape from a notorious prison in
Venice, Italy. He claims to have escaped the Venetian prison by using a piece of metal to make a hole
in the ceiling and climbing through the roof. Critics claim that while such a daring escape makes for
enjoyable reading, it is more likely that the Chevalier’s jailers were bribed to free him. They point out that
the Chevalier had a number of politically well-connected friends in Venice who could have offered a bribe.
In contrary to the lecture, the reading passage emphesizes on the negative sides of the Memoir of Chevalier, the prefessor focuses on the credibility of the memoir. The lecture also sopport numerous evidence to corroborate the truthfulness of the facts of the menoir of Chevalier.
First and foremost, the reading passage says that the Chevalier was not rich person as desdribes in his memoir. The passage says that he had taken loan from the Swiss marchent. Whereas, the professor says that Chevalier's wealth in his property and that needs to sale to get money. For getting quick money he took loan.That's why, the Chevalier was really an affluent person.
Secondly, the professor says that the conversation in the memoir is original. The lecture supports this, because the Chevalier used to copy the conversation and kept them to him. On the other hand, the reading passage says that the conversation are not true because that were long happended.
Finally, the passage says that the incident of escaping the prison by using the special metal piece is fake and he might have taken the help of his political friend to bribe the jailor. However, the professor says that in the Venice jail, other influential persons were there but they could not escape by the same way. What's more, the lecture also mentions that Government document shows the evidence of the repairing of ceiling of the Venice Prison, which were done by the Chevalier.
In conclusion the evidence presented by the reading passage is opposed by the lecture.The professor does not think that the fact of Memoir of Chevalier in false.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 319, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Thats
...y. For getting quick money he took loan.Thats why, the Chevalier was really an afflue...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 319, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
...y. For getting quick money he took loan.Thats why, the Chevalier was really an afflue...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 320, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
... they could not escape by the same way. Whats more, the lecture also mentions that Go...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 87, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...ading passage is opposed by the lecture.The professor does not think that the fact ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, really, second, secondly, so, whereas, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1342.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 268.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00746268657 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58531202591 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.503731343284 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 412.2 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.7395244718 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.230769231 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6153846154 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.23076923077 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.164068770313 0.272083759551 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0652213372386 0.0996497079465 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.055954368108 0.0662205650399 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0921243551508 0.162205337803 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0517044824573 0.0443174109184 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.05 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.